“The Internet will never take off”
- Bill Gates, Founder of Microsoft, 1988

Did you laugh in sheer irony when reading the above quote? Well, I did. How could the founder of Microsoft, a multi-billionaire and computer genius with unparalleled skill, predict that a present-day global phenomenon on such a scale would ‘never take off‘ ? As ludicrous as this seems to us today, that was the prevailing mindset of the people at that time. Who could have guessed that the internet, at that time a network consisting of sparsely spread-out computers around the world, could evolve to such an undeniably gargantuan scale?

However, with every new venture that is made by mankind, come new opporunities for crime and punishment. The internet is no exception. With it comes new methods to put across one’s thoughts to others, or convey factual information, but inevitably, someone, somewhere, will post a comment that is deemed morally unacceptable and this person will be likely prosectuted.

This debate is on the subject of whether students can be held liable for anything inappropriate posted on their online comments. This motion is rather ambiguous; thus before I begin with my main argument, we need to make a few assumptions.

First and foremost, ’students’ should refer to our youth, as in, individuals below eighteen years of age. A lot of citizens opt for university education, where they are still students, but are by definition full-grown members of our society. Next, ‘inappropriate’ would refer to comments degrading another religion or race, or anything of major implication, not personal insults targeted at another individual. Cyber-bullying is another matter entirely and will be handled by teachers and counsellors, not by the law.

Youths should definitely not be held liable for their online comments if they are first time offenders. In this time and age, most youths use the internet often; an estimated 90% of teenagers probably access the internet on a daily basis. It has become an integral part of our culture and denying a teenager access to his/her computer would likely lead to a possibly violent objection. With such ready access to internet chat forums and weblogs, most teens do not think twice before submitting a comment or critiscm. Most do not realize the full repurcussions of their actions. It is the job of the school and the parents to nurture these teens and teach them to be less rash in judgement. Surely these youths have to face some kind of consequence. But does that mean they have to be legally prosecuted?

Surely unlike major crimes that might be committed such as arson or assault, posting online comments will not cause anyone to be critically injured or result in major loss of property. One might argue that straining racial tensions could lead to segregatory violence or vandalism. As a multiracial and multicultural society, Singaporeans must strive to preserve racial and religious stability and prevent conflict over such matters. The past is our teacher on this ; let us not forget the racial riots on Prophet Muhammed’s Birthday in 1964, with over 30 casualties due to racial tensions between two major ethnic groups: the Chinese and the Malays. In actuality, it is an offence under subsection 3 of the Singapore Sedition Act to make racist or religiously discriminating actions.

However, I honestly have doubts about a single online comment sparking any tensions at all. Maybe just some rage that will soon be dissipated and forgotten. Those who make these comments are obviously the minority; and to believe that any mature individual, at all, would use these comments as an excuse, or as a reason, to hurt a member of the other race/religion is absolutely ridiculous . Undoubtedly the regular, decently intelligent member of society will simply laugh it off and forget about it.

In fact, if there is an ideal world where any small remark could start a riot, there would be utter and total anarchy. Chaos would reign.

One might argue that in the past, many, single comments have initiated entire wars. But this only happens in unstable societies where relationships are already straining. Singapore is obviously not an unstable society, neither are any of the world’s major nations who can work to enforce this law.

Bringing such cases to the juvenile courts would also serve to make the youths in custody develop the opinion that everything they do can be possibly punished for. This will make some of them ‘lock up on themselves’, being overly cautious in the world, or will (more likely) fuel more resentment in them towards the justice system. Instead, like I have stated in my first paragraph, offending students should be sent to teachers for punishment and perhaps sent for counselling, except in serious cases of repeat misconduct. That is the role of parents and teachers in society – to shape and guide these youths. The Juvenile Court usually is only be brought into cases where the students are beyond parental control, such as in cases involving arson or serious theft. So, by posting one or two degratory remarks on a website, the student is deemed beyond parental control and sent to a home? This is absurd, preposterous, and unjust.

To conclude, we should not trouble the justice system with such trivial crimes; it is the role of the parents and teachers in the society. In the end, I believe, and challenge you to believe as well, that students should not be held liable for their online comments.

Well rated. Like or Dislike: 9  2

Here’s to clarify, teams will be given 2 mins for conference before the reply speeches.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Most scholarships are given in the interest of the receiving student. So if you deny the financially burdened student of the scholarship and give it to the very able middle-class student, you definitely do not have the interest of the financially burdened student at heart while giving out scholarships.

Simply, when there are two students with similar grades in consideration, the student whose family is not as well off should be the first choice unless the other student is some exceptional student in other areas.

Like or Dislike: 5  3

I believe prosecution must be in placed instead of just uttering, “The problem is, do we send the boy to jail? What good would that do?’” Quote from A-G Water Woon.

Like or Dislike: 0  2

Interesting. Thoughts?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

How? By making scholarships applicable to individuals on a meritcratic basis, it levels the playing field. It does in no way, causes any unfairness. Why? First of all, when financial concerns are not the deciding factor to the application of a scholarship, it allows both the rich and the poor to qualify. They are both abiding by the same set of rules- that they must perform well academically. There is then, no incentive to offer the scholarship only to the poor. Furthermore, we need to acknowledge today that other forms of financial assistance such as the bursaries are being offered to those who are not financially viable who perform well academically, anyway. Therefore, the poor will still benefit from this separate policy. Unless it can be proven that these policies have been counterproductive, scholarships should still be applicable to everyone.

Both parties will hence be judged purely on meritocracry. Therefore, when both parties are given the scholarship, it does not undermine the playing field as they stand an equal chance. Then why, is levelling the playing field that important? It will be further elaborated later on how it will send the right message to society.

Now, moving on to the point on why the rich should be placed in equal consideration. Even though it is true that they are financially able to fork out the cost for education because of affluent family backgrounds, the essential crux does not lie within this. Why? The point of offering scholarships is, as reiterated once again, based on how well these students perform in the national examinations. Therefore, the main issue here is the concern whether these rich students deserve the scholarship or not. The perception is still evident, which is exactly why the rich should not be deprived. If they perform just as well as the poor, there is no incentive why they should not be offered the scholarships. The idea is simple- if one should score well, he should deserve the scholarship, regardless of their financial viability. The consideration on family backgrounds is therefore, of secondary importance compared to this, because the judgement on meritocracry is definitely more significant, and should be the sole factor.

Indirectly, this is also raising the emphasis on the importance of meritocracry. The offer of scholarships to everyone is fundamentally, a basis towards talent meritocracry. By making scholarships exclusive, what happens is that the emphasis on the significance on meritocracry is questioned. Why? It is simply because outstanding academic performance will no longer be the only consideration for the eligibility of scholarships. Therefore, in order to continue to promote the importance of meritocracry, scholarships should be for both the rich and the poor.

In addition, it is significant that scholarships should be offered fairly, which is by academic performances. As previously explained how it can level the playing field, let us examine the message that this conveys to society. By allowing both the rich and the poor to qualify for the scholarship, it sends out the message that fairplay is practiced.

In the case of a hypothetical situation, if only the poor are being offered the scholarship, the likelihood of people developing flawed mentalities that only the poor “deserve” the scholarship is possibly high, which is essentially untrue. This is also, undermining the true meaning of “scholarship”, as it will no longer just be based on academic merit, Therefore, by making scholarships applicable for all, the education system is sending out the right message to society, that regardless of their financial capability, they are still playing on the same level field. Therefore, it is indirectly, an eradication of unsure perceptions.

Finally, let us examine on the aspect of the government’s perspective. the government’s aim of offering scholarships, is to increase the flow of local talent and to provide further opportunities in careers. By ensuring that everyone stands a chance, it will evidently mean a greater talent pull. Therefore, it is, in the long run, beneficial for Singapore economically, with the interest of society. Therefore, there is no incentive to disallow the rich from attaining scholarships, as that would possibly mean detriments.

In a nutshell, the education system does not take into account financial concerns, for the simple reasons that through multiple considerations for the interest of society at heart, scholarships should be applicable for everyone. It is and will continue to be beneficial for both parties in the long run, as well as fulfil government’s interest.

Like or Dislike: 6  1

Like or Dislike: 3  5

In this debate, there are a few questions to answer (some of which I raised already):

1. When does the government ban something?
This is the most critical issue. Unfortunately, we didn’t get very detailed answers, although most of you had a vague sense of comparing “harms” against “benefits”. A specific criteria is always helpful for debates like this.

2. What are the “harms” of GSV?
The views expressed were all against the motion, so most people downplayed the harms. This is an effective strategy – Y, Carolyn, and Spritz all claimed that the “harms” were overstated. Always make it clear what the point of your argument is, in clear english, so that the judge knows what you are trying to prove. The point being made here was that the GSV does not merit a ban because the harms are overstated.

Another useful tactic was to explain that the harms were not unique to GSV, and any website could provide similar information. This made it clear that banning GSV would not achieve the desired “security” goals in any case. This made it clear that a ban was would not be effective.

3. What are the “benefits” of GSV?
Most people chose to focus their attention on Q2 instead. This is a dangerous strategy. The proposition could claim that the benefits do not outweigh the harms – so even if the harms are minimal, the benefits are even less. Thus, the government would still have reason to ban it (because the benefits do not outweigh the harms). So, try and establish a stronger case for the benefits for future debates of this nature.

The whole issue of personal-privacy-versus-technology is still a hot topic, so expect it to be featured in debates for many years to come.

And now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for…

The winner for this month’s best comment is… Carolyn!
She attempted to outline the benefits of GSV to the economy (Q3), downplayed the harms of GSV (Q2), and analysed what the government’s considerations should be in this case (Q1, sorta..). Good job!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 0  0